Mumbai Court November 2008 Judgments
Suresh S/O Chaitya Konkani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Tulshiram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR340
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by original accused No. 1 being aggrieved by order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2004 decided on 14.02.2007, whereby the appellant was convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:P.W.2-Tulshiram Konkani has his land adjacent to the land of his brother - Isaram. Prior to the incident in question, quarrels had taken place over boundary bund between P.W.2-Tulshiram and sons of his brother Isaram. Chaitram is the father of the appellant and brother of Tulshiram and Isaram. There are two more brothers. On the day of incident i.e. on 07.10.2004 at 6.30 a.m. there was quarrel between Tulshiram and his son Rupchand on one side and original ...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Energy Limited Vs. Rashtrawadi Kamgar Sangh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ708Bom
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. Before we deal with the merits of the case, we must state that since, here we are concerned with an interim order, we tried to bring about some amicable interim arrangement which could operate during the pendency of the complaint, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. We were, however, not successful in our efforts and, hence, we have proceeded to hear this appeal finally.3. The appellants are original petitioners. They are a public limited company engaged in the business of supply of electricity in the suburbs and surrounding areas of Mumbai and Thane District. They shall be referred to as the appellant company for convenience. The appellant company is covered by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, 'the BIR Act'). Respondent 1 is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1946. It represents 41 workmen with...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nilima Wd/O Anil Mishra Vs. Engg. Export Promotion Council a Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR306
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the order of suspension dated 29th March 2005, Exhibit 'B' to the Petition, charge sheet dated 28th April 2005, Exhibit 'C' to the Petition, the order communicated on 11th August 2008, Exhibit 'D' passed by the Committee of Administration and the inquiry proceedings initiated by the Department against the Petitioner on the basis that the charge sheet being violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law. The Petitioner has also prayed for grant of interim reliefs during the pendency of the Writ Petition.2. The Petition came up for admission after, notice to the other side, and with the consent of the parties, the Petition itself was taken up for final disposal. Arguments were heard on 23rd and 24th September 2008 where after the case was reserved for judgment.3. It is not necessary for us to...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo S/O Atmaramji Nage Vs. the Maharashtra State Road Transport Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR853]; 2009(2)MhLj817
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Conductor working with Respondent - Road Transport Corporation has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.2.2005 delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Amravati in ULP (Revision) No: 114/2000. The petitioner was dismissed from services of respondent on 12.10.1992, after conducting departmental inquiry and he challenged that dismissal by filing Complaint (ULP) under Section 28 read with Section 7 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act of 1971.) before the Labour Court, Amravati vide ULP Complaint No. 390/1992. In that complaint, on 31.5.1993, the Labour Court granted him relief for interim reinstatement. However, after hearing the parties on 18.9.2000, the Labour Court partly allowed the Complaint and ordered his reinstatement without back wages. In terms of the interim orders o...
Tag this Judgment!Menon Bearings Limited and anr. Vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmchari Mahasan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj390
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of bearings for automobiles and is a supplier to automobile manufacturers. A settlement was entered into on 9th April, 2006 with the recognized union under which a graded scale of incentives came to be provided to the workmen. The minimum incentive of Rs.4,800/- per month is based on a cost of production of Rs.160 lacs whereas the maximum incentive of Rs.11,700/- is based on a cost of production of Rs.230 lacs. The other clauses of the settlement including Clauses 8, 11, 12 and 13 provide for working out the terms agreed upon by the parties for the payment of incentives. Under Clause 11 it has been stipulated that the minimum incentive is based on a manpower strength of 132 persons and the existing comple...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vithal Kale Vs. Shyamlal Bhikchand Rathod (Deceased, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR168
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Nanded, in an appeal (RCA No. 284/1983) whereby and whereunder judgment and decree rendered in a suit (RCS No.442/1982) came to be reversed.2. Appellant is the original defendant and Respondents are legal representatives of deceased plaintiff. The dispute relates to an agricultural land bearing survey No. 76/Hissa No. 6, to the extent of 25 gunthas area, out of the total area of 75 gunthas, situated at village Vasarni under Tehsil and district Nanded. This parcel of the land will be referred, hereinafter, as 'the suit land'.3. The deceased plaintiff filed suit (RCS No. 442/1982) for recovery of possession of the suit land on basis of title, which he derived from deceased Maneji @ Manika s/o Dattaram, who was admittedly original owner thereof, on basis of a registered sale deed (Exhibit-21) dated 5th November 1971, executed in his favour. He asserted that the defendant / appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Rajabhau Govindasa Dongaongaokar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR429; 2008(111)BomLR236; 2009(1)MhLj455
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ petition 4641/2008 is the earlier petition filed under apprehension that Respondent No. 2 Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati would pass adverse orders in Appeal against the Petitioners under Section 78 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as MCS Act) superseding the elected board of directors i.e. Petitioners and upholding appointment of Administrator (Respondent No 4) on a co-operative society by name Karanja Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit i.e Respondent No. 5. Earlier on 19/6/2008 Respondent No. 3 District Registrar passed an order under said provision superseding the board of directors and appointing Respondent No. 4 as Administrator on said Society. This order came to be challenged in an appeal under Section 152 of MCS Act before Respondent No. 2. In Writ Petition this Court issued notice on 21/10 2008 and made it returnable on 6/11/2008 but gave liberty to move for interim orders if con...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikrishna Jugalkishore Goenka Vs. Govind Trimbak Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR250; 2009(1)MhLj666
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally with consent of parties.3. This Second Appeal is by defendant against whom a decree was passed by the trial Court for ejectment which was confirmed by the Additional District Judge.4. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:Respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot described in the plaint. Defendant is said to be a monthly tenant. The tenancy commences on the first day of each calender month and ends on the last day of the month. The plaintiff issued a notice of termination of tenancy of the defendant on 03.08.1993 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit plot at the end of the month of March 1993. The defendant failed to do so, hence the suit5. Defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. The defendant mainly contended that the suit plot is governed by the provisions of C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. Plaintiff therefore had no right to terminate the tenancy of the def...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Seconda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR147
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the employer Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur has challenged the order dated 02.08.2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in ULPA Revision No. 90/2004, as also the judgment and order dated 07.07.2004 passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur in ULPA Complaint No. 174/1996. The Labour Court directed the petitioner / employer to reinstate the respondent / employee with continuity and full backwages. The employer then approached the Industrial Court in above mentioned revision and Industrial Court has quashed and set aside the grant of backwages, but maintained the direction to reinstate the complainant / employee with continuity. This Court has on 13.10.2006 while issuing notice in the matter, directed maintenance of status quo and while issuing Rule in the matter on 10.04.2008 this Court granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii), i.e. it stayed the operation and effect of order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda and ors. Vs. Bhikaji Ghanshyam Shingane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1365
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. Advocate Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, for petitioners/dependants contend that Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Court, Buldhana has in W.C.A. (F) Case No. 11 of 2004 (old Case No. 6 of 2001), failed to exercise jurisdiction to award interest at 12 per cent. He invites attention to the provisions of Section 4-A(3) Clause (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to contend that grant of 12 per cent interest was mandatory. He further argues that in view of provisions of Clause (b) of that sub-section, interest ought to have been awarded also on penalty amount awarded to the dependants. In order to show that he could not have challenged this non-grant of interest in appeal under Section 30, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Krishna Bai v. Kishanlal : (1993)IIILLJ653MP .3. Advocate Mr. S.R. Deshpande, on the other hand, invites attention to Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »